THE PEJORATIVE LIKUDNIK

There's an interesting discussion going on at the Washington Monthly blog on this. Here's my take on the issue.

Two different debates are getting conflated here. First, whether or not the increasing use of the term "Likudnik" in American political discourse is fueled by anti-Semitism and second, a larger question about at what point does legitimate critcism of Israeli policies cross the line into anti-Semitism.

Getting back to the original question, it is important to ask what "Likudnik" is supposed to connote in the American context. I'm pretty confident that most of the people who throw the term around are unfamiliar with the writings of Vladimir Jabotinsky.

Here are the various ways Likudnik is employed.

1) To denote supporters of the Sharon government or the Likud party against the Israeli Left. Example: American Likudniks have no idea who to support in Sharon’s ongoing struggle with members of his own party over his Gaza plan.

2) To denote supporters of a certain ideological stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue. Example: Likudniks believe that the most appropriate response to Palestinian terror is to expand the growth of settlements deep in the West Bank.

Neither of these two uses is any more problematic than say calling the Israel Policy Forum "Laborites." The problem comes from attempting to transfer the term to American policies

3) To denote supporters of an American foreign policy that supports or does not object to “Likudnik” approaches to the Israeli security policy. Example: American Likudniks do not believe our government should apply any pressure on Israel to crack down on West Bank settlement expansion.

(It should be noted, that when used employed as a pejorative by leftists and liberals, it often seems to be applied to anyone who supports American backing of various Israeli policies(e.g. the border wall and targeted strikes on terrorists) that are backed by most Israelis, including those that reject the Likud’s long-term approach to the Palestinian issue and support a negotiated two-state solution.

However, the way the term seems to be employed on an increasing basis is as way of describing the Bush administration's foreign policy in the Middle East.

4) To denote supporters of a “Likudnik” approach to American foreign policy. Example: The Likudniks real reason for going to war in Iraq was a perceived need after 9/11 that America needed to send a dramatic message to the Arab-Islamic world in order to restore its lost deterrence.

This is the more sophisticated use of the term along these lines, the analysis being that the "Likudniks" have embraced the various ideological positions of Israeli Likudniks (a belief that the Arab-Islamic world responds best to shows of force and sees conciliation as weakness, and the need for regime change as a prerequisite for lasting peace in the region) and (mis)applied them to American foreign policy. This use of Likudnik in this fashion, while not anti-Semitic in itself, stretches it to the breaking point, and too easily morphs into the more pernicious form. It frankly unnecessary to look to Israeli ideology as the genesis of Rumsfeld and Cheaney's hawkish views, as there is a long home-grown tradition (what Walter Russell Mead calls Jacksonian) that explains their worldview much more directly.

This brings us, to the final way the term is employed, and that is:

5) To denote Jewish supporters of American hawkish policy in the Middle East whose views are driven not by what they believe is best for America, but rather based on their support for Israel. Example. The Bush administration’s foreign policy was hijacked by a group of Likudniks to further their narrow agenda.

The implication is plain; that these “Likudniks” have dual loyalties, and are willing to subvert the interest of America to the benefit of Israel. When used in this fashion, “Likudnik” most definitely being used as a coded form of anti-Semitism.

To the extent, Likudnik is being used to attack concrete ideas or policies; it most likely not being used in anti-Semitic fashion, but when it is thrown about without any context as a pejorative to attack individuals, odds are anti-Semitism is at the core of that attack.